Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Act 2004 (ACT)

The applicant, who is a farmer, challenged a decision of the Minister for the Environment to give a direction under the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Act 2004 (ACT) in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant sought to grow genetically modified cotton but was denied a permit to do so by the Minister, who gave a direction that the applicant was not to grow GM cotton. The applicant argued that the Minister's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, based on irrelevant considerations, failed to take into account relevant considerations, and did not comply with the Act. The applicant further argued that the Minister's decision resulted in an unlawful acquisition of property and should be accompanied by compensation. The AAT was required to decide whether the Minister's decision was unreasonable and whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for the acquisition of property.

The AAT held that the Minister's decision was not unreasonable and was properly made under the Act. The AAT found that the Minister had considered all relevant factors and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. The AAT also held that the applicant was not entitled to compensation for the acquisition of property as the acquisition was not unlawful. The AAT noted that the Act provides for a safety net in cases where the operation of the Act would result in the acquisition of property from a person otherwise than on just terms, but the applicant's situation did not fall within this provision. The AAT concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the Minister's decision was unlawful or that compensation was due.

The AAT dismissed the application and made no orders for costs. The AAT found that the applicant had not established that the Minister's decision was unreasonable or that compensation was due. The AAT also noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support their claim for compensation. The AAT concluded that the applicant's application should be dismissed and that no orders for costs should be made.